Somacandra:thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.

Many Buddhists are less inclined to believe in gods, but hold to the teachings, including the acceptance of metaphor in those teachings, because they have found something useful. At no point, do you need gods in Buddhism for the crux of the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths to be adhered to. Many do, but that doesn't mean that the practice is necessarily "theist" or "atheist" as much what the practice means to that particular adherent. In Buddhism especially, gods serve as warning signs. Yes, many are useful, as paragons, but they are trapped in their roles. They can no more move on from their place than the Earth can stop revolving or the Sun to stop its march across the galaxy. Gods play roles, they have purpose, they serve the Celestial order, and are as forces of nature. You can respect nature, you can respect its power, find joy in a sunny day, and leap to avoid winds and rain, without falling down to worship it alone. Respect of place, respect in the order of things isn't quite the same as pure worship.

Atheism alone isn't a position. It's a lack of position. It means simply that you don't hold in a higher power. Organizing on that lack of a higher power is sort silly. As much a rejection of faith as Satanism. In this, I think that Somacandra is right to make the distinction. It isn't what you believe, but rather what you do with what you believe. Atheism and theism are broader terms to describe belief structures, or their lack, but it doesn't immediately mean that you're smarter, or dumber, or more or less violent, or better or worse, it is simply stating that you have or do not have belief structures based on the existence of powers beyond our kenn, and even then, some atheists do have some belief in some universal imperative, even if not named, or a shared consciousness. Simply identifying theist or atheist still covers a LOT of ground. Specificity is necessary in this particular conversation, and I don't think it's out of line to remind folks of that. It's not a team sport, and while in this case, this particular "church" is looking to draw folks together, to sort of mock institutions, it is sort of silly to do so on the basis of a rejection of structures alone. It is sort of the point, to have fun with it, to draw folks together, and if folks are having a good time together, more power to them, but it acts as a sort of lightning rod for the less discerning--which is perhaps the purpose--but it does sort of muddy the waters a bit.

Somacandra:thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.

Fundies, meet the Internets: the downfall of your silliness. People in Podunk who otherwise would have no contact with anyone outside their insulated community are able to receive the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips - granted, most of that knowledge centers around porn and cats, but that's a different tale for a different time. The Webs will chip away at your base. The end is nigh.

"So," I thought to myself, "at the creation of the universe from nothing there was an inconceivable amount of light followed by the most improbable conditions that allowed for the entire universe to exist."I couldn't hold back a huge smile.Why? Because Cliff's talk sounded an awful lot like this:"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.The earth was without form and void...and God said, 'Let there be light.'"

And you would be wrong in thinking that it sounds an awful lot like the Genesis myth of creation. What Dr. Cliff is describing is not a direct process caused by an agent, but an emergent process caused by independent events acting simultaneously and randomly.You are making a categorical mistake by inferring from that description the presence of any causal agency, i.e. God, in any of it. Nature simply happens, with neither proximal nor distal causation necessarily coming from any intentional agent or agents.

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

You only see a chicken-or-the-egg issue (which is not even the appropriate paradoxical allusion to make here) because you have already loaded your interpretation of what he said with an unwarranted assumption, i.e. the existence of a casual and intentional agency that set things in motion. As a parallel, that is akin to asking how much does velocity weigh, because it is assuming the referent being described belongs to a different ontological category that has different features and properties. You are assuming that things only happen if causation originates from intentionality. That is, you have already assumed a priori, with no justifiable reason to do so, that physical processes must have psychological properties in order to exist (in this case, the psychological property of intentionality as a casual factor to kick off physical events), when the reality is the overlap between physical ontologies and psychological ontologies only exists in animals... and even then only in a minority of them that happen to have a minimally sophisticated central nervous system.

It is for precisely this reason that religious dogmas either fail to be supported by scientific inquiry or are directly refuted by scientific inquiry, because the quantity and quality of a priori assumptions about reality are both greatly reduced and more logically justifiable. Whereas you, and all religious people for that matter, believe there is some psychologically-endowed entity causing things - whether it's proximally, as in intercessory prayer, or distally, as in the creation of the universe - in order to make sense of the reality you encounter, scientific inquiry has succeeded in maintaining the fewest number of relevant assumptions in order to draw any meaningful conclusion that helps us to understand the reality we encounter (for example, science assumes that all effects have causes, but doesn't assume that all causes originate from an intentional agent), making necessary additions and subtractions as more and more evidence piles in.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think. Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time. Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.

And I find this stereotypical dismissal, typical of conservative ignorance, just plain amusing.

Somacandra:thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.

Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday. Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society. I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.

Sheeit! Religion again? Sooooo boring. Been there. Total waste of 30 years. And then I got crucified. And now I have to hang up here in this fuggin' white room listening to d-bag angels sing elevator music 24-7. Which is why I've got wifi because at least I can surf some porn.

Sure, believe in "God" all you want, insects. But take it from me, my dad's a total a-hole who's never followed through on a promise in his life - unless it's to torture you like some kid with an ant farm. You wanna worship that? What-e-ver.

Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday. Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society. I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.

Well, ok. We will await your easy refutation. Have at it.

I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.

TFA: My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical?

maxheck:I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.